Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by element stubs

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Again. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death by element stubs
Recently some element stubs have been created. (Again. See this debate.) As before, these are nonnotable, essentially informationless, and are extrapolationcruft, which I am now firmly against. (I wasn't always.) The specific pages are Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbiseptium, Unbioctium, Unbiennium, Untrinilium, Untriunium, Untritrium, Unquadhexium, Unquadseptium, Unoctbium, Binilnilium. A few of these were created before and deleted. Eric119 02:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. There's an HTML comment warning not to create these things in Periodic table (extended), I guess the contributor missed it :( Kappa 02:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I added that comment after my annoyance with all these pages. I've recently made the comment stronger with lots of exclamation marks so that (I hope) people notice it. (As evidenced by the VfD, it didn't work before.) Eric119 03:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And please join the discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. My comments in discussion above, but basically extensive scientific conjecture can be notable in itself, but if it's not there (and cited) the thing should go. Demi T/C 08:13, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with redirects to Periodic table to deter recreators. Radiant_* 10:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw, speediable as recreation of previously deleted material. Radiant_* 10:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect all such titles to Undiscovered elements or something like that. Such a page can have a table of all these elements along with their chemical symbols. In that way you will avoid the recreation of such articles until the elements are discovered, and some users might have some interest in such an article. Sjakkalle 14:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and remove links from Periodic table (extended) page. &mdash; RJH 18:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, preferable undelete and revert to earlier, more nicely formatted versions. From the deletion policy: If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. I see no reason to delete a set of harmless placeholders; they will be needed when the scientific community learns about the properties of these elements. Okay, we likely have to wait some time for the discovery of Binilnilium, maybe delete all with atomic number > 130? jni 18:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Question NOT rhetorical. 1) Are these elements known to be physically possible in any meaningful sense, or are they just a mechanical exercise in applying IUPAC rules and extrapolating mathematical sequences? 2) For which of these elements are there laboratories actively pursuing their discovery? There's a big difference between saying "the source of the diamondiferous kimberlite float that occurs 900 metres west of the Jericho kimberlite has not been discovered," knowing that there must be such a source, and saying "a method of squaring the circle with ruler and compass has not been discovered." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (house matters first). These elements will without question be produced in one of the world's particle accelerators. It is only a question of when. For practical purposes, the larger the atomic number, the more difficult it is to create an element, so lower numbers are on the job card first. I see no need, however, of creating articles with extremely generic names for elements whose properties will not be fully known until they are actually brought into existence. Denni &#9775; 01:32, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. It is not without question that the elements will in fact ever be created, because of the amount of energy required. There is already talk of creating an orbital particle accelerator, since the existing ones on Earth (e.g. CERN) aren't big enough. Since the costs of such would be, well, astronomical, I find it highly dubious to assert that binilnilium for instance will ever be created anywhere. Radiant_* 09:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete again. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect them all into Undiscovered chemical elements. There's obviously a demand for such info. And this is the least messy solution that avoids constant recreation. Mgm|(talk) 20:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, atomic number 200? Although I'm loath to say flat-out that theses substance cannot exist, Radiant's comment about the sheer quantity of energy required is valid. Even an island of stability only goes so far, and for most of these I think we'd need a collider the size of the solar system. In theory, we can build an arbitrarily large collider, and use it to synthesize arbitrarily large nuclei, and so we should have an entry for every single possible undiscovered element, from 120 to 100000000 and every integer in between. In theory, every vanity page should be saved, expanded, and heavily interlinked, because everyone is notable for an arbitrary definition of "notable". The currently-accepted model of nucleosynthesis says this is simply not going to get made, ever, not even if we bankrupt our entire civilization (for the broadest possible definition of 'we' and 'civilization'). If you come up with a better model of nucleosynthesis and a compelling reason to accept it, then MAYBE there'll be a reason to have an entry for binilnilium. This is not like eka-silicon, where we already knew about several elements beyond the empty space. Delete, delete them all, and do not not not not not not create Undiscovered chemical elements unless you've come up with a radical new theory of nucleosynthesis. DS 14:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all again. Wikipedia should not be in the business of predicting future events.  The mention that already exists in the larger article is sufficient.  Rossami (talk) 07:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep any that could conceivably exist. There are plenty of concepts in math and science that can never exist in real life, but they can be modeled by computers and can be used to determine things about the elements that really do exist. Bear in mind, some of the heavier elements that have been manufactured in the lab have only existed for nanoseconds before falling apart, and yet they are not kicked out. Also, who knows what we may discover in this universe - perhaps conditions in black holes or other such phenomena are conducive to creating these elements.  What we do know is that if such elements are ever created (or found to exist somewhere), they will be bound by the laws of physics to meet certain characteristics. --BD2412 20:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.